H92241-15-R-0012-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the risk rating descriptions located in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X H92241-15-R-0012

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jul-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Oct-2015

CODE

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS CONTRACTING OFFI

BUILDING 401, LEE BLVD

ATTN: ANDREW DAVIS

FORT EUSTIS VA 23604

H92241 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92241-15-R-0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

BASIS OF AWARD

M.1 Best Value Introduction. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This acquisition is a competitive, best value source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215 and

SOFARS 5615.

M.1.1 Best Value Evaluation/ Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors. The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in this section.

Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted. The Government will evaluate all proposals against Program Management/Technical, Price, and Past Performance factors. A color/adjectival and risk rating technique, described below in Section M.2, will be used to evaluate the Program Management/Technical Factor. The Program Management/Technical Factor will also be evaluated for risk. The Price Factor will not be given a color rating or scored. Program Management/Technical, Price and Past Performance factors are in descending order of importance.

The subfactors within the Program Management/Technical Factor are listed in descending order of importance. The Program Management/Technical factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor. In accordance with FAR 15.304 (e)(1), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Program Management/ Technical Factor 1.0 Evaluation Rating System Performance Subfactor 1.1 Color/Adjectival Risk Life Cycle Support Subfactor 1.2 Color/Adjectival Risk Program Management Subfactor 1.3 Color/Adjectival Risk

Price Factor 2.0 Total Price

Past Performance Factor 3.0 Relevancy/Confidence Level

Factor 1.0 – Program Management/Technical Volume I

Subfactor 1.1: System Performance Subfactor 1.2: Life Cycle Support Subfactor 1.3: Program Management

Factor 2.0 – Price Volume II

Factor 3.0 - Past Performance Volume III

M.2 FACTOR 1: Program Management/Technical. Under the Program Management/Technical Factor, the offeror will be evaluated on how well the overall proposed technical solution meets the A/MH-6M Block 3.0 RRU

Specification. Consideration will be given to the offeror’s engineering approach, systems engineering expertise, and anticipated reliability and maintainability. The Program Management/Technical Factor has three subfactors:

System Performance, Life Cycle Support and Program Management. The System Performance subfactor is more important than the Life Cycle Support subfactor that is more important than the Program Management subfactor.

Evaluation of this Factor will focus on the strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal. The risks associated with the offeror’s technical plan and their ability to execute their plan will be evaluated. The Government will assign a color/adjectival rating with a risk rating at the subfactor level. The Government will then consolidate, “roll up”, the subfactor ratings into an overall, single color/adjectival with a separate risk rating for this Factor (addressed below), as determined by consensus of the SSEB. If one subfactor is evaluated as Unacceptable, “Red”, the technical rating will be assessed as Unacceptable. The color/adjectival and risk ratings will use the following will use the definitions in Tables 1 and 2:

The Government's A/MH-6M Block 3.0 RRU requirements are articulated in Attachment 1,the RRU Performance Specification. Failure to meet the requirements defined in Section 3.2.1.2 Display Resolution, Section 3.1.2.2.1 Ethernet, and Section 3.2.12 ARINC 611, will result in a deficiency. Failure to meet other system or subsystem requirements, will be deemed a weakness or significant weakness by the Government, depending on the extent of the requirements deviation. Failure to address a requirement in the compliance matrix as instructed in Section L.3.2.1 will also be considered as a weakness. Also, as stated in Section L.1.1, mere acknowledgement or restatement of a requirement or task is not acceptable. The Offeror may propose a revision to RRU Performance Specification requirement provided that they submit data as part of their proposal which justifies/substantiates their proposed solution meets the performance objective. Note that if an offeror’s proposal fails to meet a Government requirement that is not satisfactorially justified, it is a weakness in the offeror’s proposal. Conversely, proposal elements that exceed threshold requirements or partially meet objective requirements may be characterized as strengths and documented in the SSEB Evaluation Report.

Table 1 - Technical/Program Management Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 2 - Technical/Program Management Risk Ratings

Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Rating Description Moderate Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.2.1 Subfactor 1: System Performance. The System Performance subfactor covers: RRU Performance Specification Paragraph 3.0 Requirements. The areas under the System Performance subfactor will be carefully reviewed to ensure that the proposed system can meet the Government’s threshold technical requirements as articulated in the RRU Performance Specification. The closer the offeror is able to demonstrate achievement of the Objective value, the more favorably the proposal will be evaluated.

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate how the offeror’s proposal defines a sound, complete, and realistic broad spectrum approach to analyzing requirements, system design, and development. The Government will assess each offeror’s technical plan and design maturity. Each offeror’s proposal will be assessed to determine if the proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the RRU requirements per the RRU Specification.

The evaluators may award a strength to an offeror who provides an RRU solution that has a previously certified/qualified Cockpit Display System (CDS) kernel, binary definition file (DF), and User Application. They may also award a strength to offeror’s whose Graphical User Interface (GUI) development tools support generation of DO-178B/C artifacts or to offerors who provide a detailed plan for development and testing of the software supporting the ARINC 661 interface. Previously qualified or certified solutions may receive a “Low” risk rating.

M.2.2 Subfactor 2: Lifecycle Support. The Life Cycle Support subfactor includes an assessment of the predicted Reliability, Sustainability and Maintainability, as well as the proposed Obsolescence/ Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Approach.

The proposals will be evaluated for demonstration of a sound plan to address DMSMS and the robustness of their obsolescence management approach. This evaluation will include the reasonableness of the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) estimate.

M.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management. Under the Program Management subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s management approach to support the RRU acquisition, systems engineering expertise, schedule, and the approach to achieving production of RRUs.

M.3 FACTOR 2: Price Factor Evaluation. Price will be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404-1 (b) (2) (iii). In addition, a price realism analysis will be used to determine if the proposed price is unrealistically low without valid explanation. An unrealistically low price may demonstrate the Offeror does not fully understand the requirements. In such circumstances, an assessment of an unrealistically low price may affect the Program Management/Technical rating of the proposal. The Price Evaluation will also compare proposed costs to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government will conduct a price analysis of proposals. The total evaluated price includes price information in accordance with Section B of the solicitation including the estimated production quantities as described in SOW paragraph 4.2. The evaluated price will not include any quantity price breaks. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.4 FACTOR 3: Past Performance. Offeror’s Past Performance - Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The evaluation will be based on the offeror’s most recent contracts for similar requirements for the past three years, as well as data from independent sources. Past Performance will assess the relevancy and the risk associated with performing the current effort based upon the offeror’s prior performance.

a. Based on the evaluation results, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating to the past performance volume. The evaluation will consider the factors as described in paragraph

(d) below. Based on the evaluation results, the Government will assign one of five confidence ratings as defined in paragraph (g) below. An offeror may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies or subcontractors.

b. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) use data independently obtained from other sources; (2) rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (3) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror's corrective actions; and (4) automated Past Performance Data Bases (i.e.

CPARS, PPIRS, NAFI Data, FAPIIS).

c. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, an offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (i.e. the relevance of an offeror's past performance information, as related to this acquisition, adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

d. Past Performance shall be evaluated on the basis of the following factors. Each of these factors is equal in importance:

(1) Quality of Performance

(2) Management Effectiveness

(3) Customer Satisfaction

(4) Timeliness

e. Currency, Relevancy, Trends: The Government will consider the currency, relevancy and trends of the performance information while conducting its past performance evaluation. For the purpose of this solicitation, currency is performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring during 2014 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during 2012. For the purpose of this solicitation, relevancy is defined as providing similar services as required by the Professional Labor Categories during the contract term. Relevancy is a key variable in the integrated assessment of Past Performance.

f. The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

g. The following adjectives and related definitions will be used in the evaluation of Past performance:

Rating Definition Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

AND

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(End of Summary of Changes)